Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday June 02, 2012 @09:21PM
from the would-you-like-some-goose-with-your-gander? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Further to the previous story on Slashdot where attorney Candice Schwager threw threats to sue a photographer who reported a DMCA violation against her for infringing use of his photography: Candice has now made a DMCA threat of her own against Petapixel, a photography site that reported on her infringement. The kicker? She's sent the DMCA notice an apparent six times not to Petapixel's registrar or their hosting service, but to Godaddy, her own registrar."

Well you know Schizophrenia can sometimes have a late onset. I'm not a doctor, but her writing definitely has a certain rambling, imbalanced quality to it. That whole, huge thing was one long paragraph on the theme of "everyone is out to get me". It's possible that she is genuinely mentally ill, and yet she might have been a competent attorney once. All I can say is that, as a layman, I was somewhat concerned for her mental health after reading that blog entry. It doesn't strike me as the writings of a sane person, but I'm not an expert.

She needs to hear the other point-of-view from someone she trusts and respects. Someone she will listen to and actually take it onboard when they tell her she's being pretty stupid and wasting her own time. Probably someone she works for at one of the sites she maintains. And if you locate someone, be nice. Real nice. I shouldn't need to say it, but distingush between Ms Schwager and her actions and also between her actions and these organisations. Point out how her idiocy is making them look bad.

Showing a picture of a hamburger (as an example), then reviewing the food is not what is meant by "criticism, comment, news reporting"--if you didn't take the picture, that's just plain old infringement. It means commenting on or criticizing the *actual* photograph in question as a work of art--not the subject of the photograph.

So if I run newspaper, I can't just use whatever graphic for any story I want and claim fair use because "news reporting"--I only get to invoke fair use if the news story is about the photograph in question.

She might be able to make a fair use claim somewhere, but I doubt she can make a fair use case for the vast majority of the infringements. I don't see how some guy's campaign for Sheriff qualifies as an entitlement to free use of any stock photography he wants.

Personally, I think I am honest, and a terrible liar. I didn't realize most people were full of shit until I was about 32, and by then it was too late for me. My honesty, even though I am skeptical, makes me trusting and gullible.

What I have learned is that there are people like me... but we look just like people like them, the liars. Liars don't lie necessarily to hurt people, just to amuse themselves sometimes. They are not always sociopaths. Most churches, for instance, by and large are full of decent individuals... yet they are also chock full of liars. The same is true of any large group.

The best defense is an early and strong offense: Lie first, lie well. Once you accuse someone of something, it is nearly impossible to get rid of the bull... unless you have been in the same place for a long time and have a large number of friends you trust. But if this is true, likely, you feel comfortable enough to lie... that you are more important than whomever your apparent enemy is.

I was always taught that eventually, the truth comes out... and this is more or less the case... but even when the truth comes out, damage has been done. First impressions are lasting impressions. In any microsociety, everyone loves a stink... everyone loves to talk trash, everyone loves heresay, and even third hand heresay. If you happen upon a truely honerable person that stands up against the bullshit, do what you can to support them, befriend them, because they are the most loyal friends.

Remember this: the crowd is untrue! The individuals are beyond reproach, everyone sees themselves as better than the other, but the crowd decides what happens, and the individual can do nothing to stem the tide... nothing but get thrown under a bus.

Either you can subscribe to social darwinism, dog eat dog world and all that, or you can strive to be better, a human being, someone who won't devolve into a back stabber just to amuse yourself or eliminate someone you see as competition. You don't have believe in God to see that the Golden Rule is actually a decent code... its really Newton's Third Law of Motion, and in that you can believe because its science! Try to break Karma... I dare you.

Sadly I am with you...I voted libertarian (I'm in CA, so not like it matters, my vote is swamped by SF and LA/SD areas).Frankly I know we are supposed to have a multiparty system, but we've been a duopoly so long that the republicrats have consolidated their power. They battle over petty stuff very publicly. But if there is ever something that could actually harm their power base you never hear about it and how they work very closely together to see that it fails.

We need a revolution in this country, not a bloody one, but a ballot box one. I think the Tea Party is a good thing, just because they are harming the existing power base.-nB

Actually Bush still owns that ranch. And I think that if he wanted to make his ranch a political topic, he probably would have advertised somewhere that it is designed with immense energy efficiency in mind, which is in stark contrast to Al Gore's house:

Bush actually had it designed that way prior to the 2000 election. I think if he wanted to make a political issue out of that house, either he, or somebody in his campaign, would have pointed that out when Al Gore's primary selling point against Bush was that he is an environmentalist.

According to Rmoney [thestreet.com], 500000 a month would be successful.

Of course, Obama is a recipreversexclusion - had the economy created half a million jobs last month, they'd be saying it should create 2 million. No matter what he did or was (allegedly) responsible for, it's wrong.

Much like Libya, when before Obama and NATO intervened the Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop. And afterwards, when we were done (in a month, for under a billion dollars, and with none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple) they continued whinging that we never should've intervened in the first place.

And their base believed each of these things in turn, and never saw how ridiculous that is. This exact kind of pattern repeats again, and again, and again. It's been going on for decades. The lack of retrospection and introspection in the Republican party and right-wingers in general never ceases to amaze and/or horrify me. I just don't understand how anyone can listen to someone like Hannity or Glenn Beck and not eventually realize "This person's claims have no relation to what actually happens. This person is never right about anything. I should stop listening to them." Seriously! How the hell does that not happen?

Folks, you're too quick to conclude that Republican voters are stupid. I know quite a few old white guys who are actually smart people, and who vote Republican. What they think does make sense, if the premises they believe are true. They are stuck in the 1950's, stuck on the American ideal of the rugged individualist, and the march of progress. They still believe in getting ahead through hard work, in pushing their children to strike out on their own, and they've seen well-meaning social aid enable dependency. They know it's a hard world, and they believe tough love is the best way to help others. Most of all, they still have a charming sort of optimism that society is largely in control of honest people who will reward others for a job well done, and that the world is a stable place that is not going to get warmer, and there is no call for panic and massive spending over what seems to them fantastical and most unlikely. Much more pressing matters are foreign enemies, which in those days were of course the Commies. In all this, there is none of the lunatic social conservative. These guys remember the times when Democrats were a collection of hippies, artists, impractical dreamers, morons, and slackers sponging off the hard work of our engineers and scientists, and hiding behind the shield of our military. 1969 really reinforced that. Woodstock looks shabby, pointless, and downright irresponsible next to the moon landing. Yes, it was a Democratic president, Kennedy, who proposed it, but the Republicans were quick to see the military potential of space. They simply do not see that today, the Republican party has completely flip flopped on science. Note also that Vietnam was pushed by the Democrats as much as or more than the Republicans. Neither party seemed capable or willing to stop that war. Ford was the president who finally ended Vietnam, not a peace loving Democrat.

There are cracks. They haven't given up on the Republican party, but they are wavering. The anti-science, anti-fact craziness is harder than ever to overlook, and is bothering them. The fraud and corruption of recent years that lead to the Great Recession also bothers them, but on that front the Democrats are indistinguishable-- all politicians and liars and crooks. It doesn't help that Obama has basically done at best nothing to curb the excesses and crimes of the financial sector. Only Madoff has been imprisoned. We are in peril of another financial meltdown. The PIIGS, particularly Greece, will undoubtedly be blamed for much of it. But there's plenty we can do in the US whatever happens with Europe. The sad fact is like with the Vietnam War in the 60's, neither party seems willing to take steps to do so. We need to bolster honesty and transparency in the markets and politics. Got to police the markets, get tough on white collar crime. Who are you supposed to vote for if you feel Wall Street fraud and campaign finance is our biggest problem? Whoever is not currently in power?

This may be the chance; she seems crazy enough to actually lose. PetaPixel should report the perjury and we should all pile in with donations to support them. Getting a precedent set in this direction would really really help.

In the DMCA notice the complaining has to state that they in good faith believe that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

The notice also has to include a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Since a copyrights lawyer could reasonably be expected to know that the usage would fall under a fair use defense and therefore the use is authorized by the law they could therefore not under the penalty of perjury truthfully swear that the information in the notification is accurate.